Klipsch Roy Delgado explaining why Klipsch measures so bad.

[kharan]

I don't see how this is relevant. Truly. Do explain.

 

[Chris A]

You can oblige by answering the previous question...

 

[kharan]

You can oblige by answering the previous question...

I really can't, I could give you the dictionary definition but that wouldn't advance anything since I don't see the context and how it applies to the discussion.

 

[Chris A]

...Sure these speakers were by convention, too far apart, but there was a palpable soundstage between them, vocalists planted centrally, the balance pretty good too (like the Quad 57, easily adjusted to in a minute or so after some hours listening to smaller boxy sounding speakers) and the whole rig was one that you could turn on, pop a disc into the player (or tune in a radio station) and then easily forget the system in favour of the music itself. very few of this speaker system found its way over here, but I'm glad I got to hear a more modern set and have warm positive vibes about that session all these years later.

I'd really like to hear how the current babies in the range sound, now they've been tweaked and refined a little. A pair of smaller floor standers with copper-coloured-cones in the early noughties, screamed too much to be taken seriously here, but things seem to have hugely moved on now

My experience is that the old K-55/K-400 midrange and K-77 tweeter drivers/horns were as much of a limitation on sound quality as the time alignment and amplitude/phase response (i.e., transfer function) that was limited by the crossover (balancing) networks. Once you get a stock Khorn from years passed dialed in and tri-amped with the old drivers/horns, the difference wasn't quite as great as one might like to hear. However, having come from 1st-gen Jubilee performance, it's easy to hear what you get by tri-amping an old pair of Khorns--and what you don't.

So my point is that the introduction of a much better K-510-like horns for the midranges (and better compression drivers), and much better tweeters substituted than the old K-77s, then there was a leap in the overall sound quality once everything gets dialed-in.

EDIT: Tying back to the discussions of what's important in loudspeaker design to recreate a listening experience that reminds the listener of being there, there are alternative approaches than just flat amplitude response and well-behaved directivity response.

JMTC.

Chris

 

[Chris A]

I really can't, I could give you the dictionary definition but that wouldn't advance anything since I don't see the context and how it applies to the discussion.

Are you an engineer or physicist? What is your background? (I ask because this discussion is now getting down to a level where it would help a lot if I understood what your knowledge of engineering is..)

Chris

 

[kharan]

Are you an engineer or physicist? What is your background? (I ask because this discussion is now getting down to a level where it would help a lot if I understood what your knowledge of engineering is..)

Chris

Engineering studies, but that was a long time ago.

 

[Suntoucher]

Having owned a few heritage Klipsch speakers in the past, I know what a pain it can be to make them sing… I tried various amplification from solid state to tubes but for me never got it right. I guess in overdamped rooms they might work best… but that‘s not my cup of tea.

 

[PristineSound]

I tried various amplification from solid state to tubes but for me never got it right.

Assuming both your SS and tubes are load and frequency invariant, despite the tube having higher harmonic distortion, why would you expect them to be different? Horn is already very efficient, even with the low amount of tube power, you should get sufficient SPL at your listening distances.

For competently engineered electronics (doesn't even have to be excellent, just competent), it will not make any difference on how your speakers perform or sound like.

 

[Chris A]

Having owned a few heritage Klipsch speakers in the past, I know what a pain it can be to make them sing… I tried various amplification from solid state to tubes but for me never got it right. I guess in overdamped rooms they might work best… but that‘s not my cup of tea.

I agree.

However, Jubilees are a completely different experience, especially when they are dialed-in (amplitude and phase) and a little nearfield absorption placed on the sidewalls near the HF horn mouth exits. The loudspeaker itself really doesn't care nearly as much what's driving it (however, you can hear defects in the amplifier performance quite clearly). My room acoustics are fairly live :

Chris

 

[Chris A]

Engineering studies, but that was a long time ago.

Okay, the reason that the original question was asked in the video with Roy was because it was observed that Klipsch loudspeakers often do not "measure well" (a subject that we have actually been examining from the standpoint that there is more than one way to measure and to optimize each loudspeaker design). This is a systemic characteristic.

This means that the engineering processes that produce these loudspeakers has systemic characteristics to produce them in the way that they are--it's not by accident. So that is what Roy was talking about in his response to the first question posed to him. (We'll get to how this process is replicated across the enterprise in a moment.)

Every loudspeaker design proceeds based on a common set of desired capabilities that sets the company's products apart from other company offerings. That means that the organizational or engineering processes for producing new loudspeaker designs proceed based on requirements and an understanding of what the precedence of engineering requirements are.

In order for these qualities to stay in the various designs of the company, each loudspeaker design is examined, measured, and verified that it meets these requirements, after the engineer presents the design for review internally. The process of making sure the design meets organizational standards is called verification. The requirements can be written down in a document, in engineering work instructions, or simply understood by the engineers (I've worked in both types of enterprises). So how the engineers convey to one another how to do each loudspeaker is a function of the engineer's job.

What do the engineers use to measure their performance with their loudspeaker designs? They could use "spinoramas", or they could use other measurement types and procedures. If they use only spinoramas (and nothing else), that would tend to bias the results toward a certain type of loudspeaker design. If they use other types of measurements and plots, looking for results that please them and their bosses, then they get different types of loudspeaker designs.

Spinorama is not a "measurement for measurement's sake" phenomenon--just to hand to someone that looks like a customer. It's done by engineers because the engineers themselves need to verify that they are producing designs meeting their enterprise requirements. If the enterprise needs designs whose characteristics cannot be easily seen in a particular set of measurements and plots, then other measurements and plots are used, sometimes replacing the "spinorama" approach.

Chris

 

[kma100]

Perhaps Roy should be invited here to discuss his approach (I mean that sincerely).

 

[Chris A]

[email protected]

Be my guest--I'm right behind you.

Note that Roy is not really a man of many words, in fact he typically sets new records for brevity of responses as time goes on...but it's fun to guess what he's really saying.

You can find him over on the K-forum. His handle is "Chief Bonehead".



Chris

 

[Arindal]

It's not only Toole who says a flat frequency response is more important. JJ has said that we should equalise to the on-axis frequency response, because that is what our ears lock on to first.

Equalizing to a flat direct-sound response at a single point, if resulting in a kinked power response or frequency response at different positions, does not sound like a reasonable goal here. Neither does the idea that sound which comes first, is always to be prioritized. Even if there is a certain amount of masking at play, we still perceive the tonality of reflections coming in later. So ideally both have to be in line regarding tonal balance, for which a constant directivity concept is needed.

I read from the Klipsch guy´s statement that this prioritize power response because the ratio is linked to the fundamental design of the speaker and cannot be altered later. The frequency response at a single point certainly can be changed easily by altering the x-over or applying DSP.

Btw many recognized loudspeaker developer promote a concept which is not congruent with Toole´s. Some even say that linear response over a limited listening window is more important than flat one at a single point.

Now Toole's listener preference studies have their own issues (which I discussed somewhere else on ASR)

The interesting question to me is why they claim to show as a result a model of sound preference of a large group, while the vast majority of people seemingly opt for speakers deviating from this concept when making their own buying decisions based on personal listening tests.

I think that it could be the rise in AM distortion at listenable levels. There is about 20 dB of EQ boost that's in the bass channel at 20-25 Hz relative to ~100 Hz (i.e., 10x the amplitude) which complicates the problem of AM distortion due to a really big EQ boost.

Thanks for the graph, and it is certainly true that such a ´basshorn+hidden vent hybrid´ concept requires rather weird-looking EQ curves as two concept of completely different efficiency are mixed here. But I cannot see why this should lead to audible AM distortion, as it is simply a result of the ´true bass horn part´ of the concept, i.e. above 65Hz, requires just a minimum of input power from the amp due to enormously high efficiency. I have no reliable data on the sensivitiy but I guess it is around 100dB from 1W. Which means that the bands below the basshorn´s comfort zone are initially about -8dB less loud at the cut-off freq and require an increasing boost towards lower frequencies around +12dB per octave.

Does not really look unusual to me, rather a mild form of EQ if you are dealing with dipoles, overly compact sealed subwoofers and alike. Neither is the sensivitity which I would put somewhere in the 85dB region below 30Hz. Nothing to worry about AM distortion in my understanding.

 

[Arindal]

You showed this graph and said that the large EP spike in the 2nd graph is audible. Then you went on to say that eliminating it creates more bass impact and eliminates harshness.

I am pretty sure the spikes in group delay result from the very steep, high-q parametric filters seemingly countering narrow-banded cancellation issues (at 180 and 270Hz, I would assume). Do not really see how this contributes to harshness, as the bass bin is bandwidth-limited and the mid/high horn section not affected. If it is a problem, it should be doable to use different filters such as FIR to avoid the group delay issue.

Also do not really see why a narrow-banded issue around 180 and 270Hz might contribute to bass impact problems. Interestingly, I found the DSP-corrected Jubilee to be one of the few speakers which give the feeling that the lower bass is really in line with the rest of the impulse.

I find this very interesting because I have heard Klipsch Jubilees, and found them virtually unlistenable due to harshness.

I understand what you mean, and a friend of mine came to the very same conclusion, so he asked me to apply some EQ magic. To tame these speakers, I found the 3-4.5K region to be key, but it is really very much dependent on the room, listening distance and angle.

 

[Chris A]

I find this very interesting because I have heard Klipsch Jubilees, and found them virtually unlistenable due to harshness.

Clearly, I missed this earlier. I think the word hyperbole likely applies to your use of the word "unlistenable" in this case. I've heard a lot of loudspeakers in a lot of environments, but virtually none of them could I apply that word to their performance. I instead suspect your recordings listened to during auditioning and/or the room acoustics and setup....or simply your listening preferences/hearing acuity.

But unfortunately, this is not the first time I've run into this sort of thing. I question the circumstances under which you listened to them. If you describe the room size and placement in-room in which you heard them, it might help to dissuade my assessment of the likelihood of this condition. Also, you would need to describe the exact music selections you used for your audition, since these loudspeakers do ruthlessly expose any defects in mastering, etc.

What I have empirically found, however, is that all-pass phase growth from the crossover filters = harshness. If you eliminate the all-pass phase growth due to the 4th order crossover filters used in the Klipsch DSP box, you eliminate the induced harshness. Any other harshness you might encounter would mostly come from the recordings themselves.

Here are some examples of an unlistenable recordings made listenable via declipping and re-EQing.

Chris

 

[Mart68]

Clearly, I missed this earlier. I think the word hyperbole likely applies to your use of the word "unlistenable" in this case. I've heard a lot of loudspeakers in a lot of environments, but virtually none of them could I apply that word to their performance. I instead suspect your recordings listened to during auditioning and/or the room acoustics and setup.

But unfortunately, this is not the first time I've run into this sort of thing. I question the circumstances under which you listened to them. If you describe the room size and placement in-room in which you heard them, it might help to dissuade my assessment of the likelihood of this condition. Also, you would need to describe the exact music selections you used for your audition, since these loudspeakers do ruthlessly expose any defects in mastering, etc.

What I have empirically found, however, is that all-pass phase growth from the crossover filters = harshness. If you eliminate the all-pass phase growth due to the 4th order crossover filters used in the Klipsch DSP box, you eliminate the induced harshness. Any other harshness you might encounter would mostly come from the recordings themselves.

Here are some examples of an unlistenable recordings made listenable via declipping and re-EQing.

Chris

I've heard Cornwalls sound unlistenable (what constitutes unlistenable will vary from person to person but I admit my standards are fairly high). I cannot name the music played but it was undemanding jazz type fayre.

I've also heard them sound listenable - so you're probably right in saying the cause was not intrinsic to the speakers.

However the 'listenable' Cornwalls still had a gross colouration in the midrange that was present in everything played on them. I could not personally live with that. The owner accepted that it was there, it did not bother him, the ease and scale of the reproduction overcame that issue for him.

It's not an approach I can really come to terms with since it's possible to have a loudspeaker that has the same scale and ease without such gross colourations.

I have listened to Heresys on a few occasions, they have always sounded as rough as a badger's arse to me, regardless of the music programme.

I've no experience with Forte, Scala, K-Horn.

 

[Chris A]

Cornwalls are not Jubilees (not even close...even if the Cornwalls are tri-amped and dialed in). They are very far apart in almost all acoustic performance areas.

Cornwalls come in varieties. I suspect your assessment would change if you listened to CW IVs instead of CW Is-IIIs.

I own a pair of Heresy Is that now stay in the garage. I don't listen to them. The same is true for the Cornwall Is--they sit in storage, and Khorn clones. The Belle bass bins are in use in my 5.1 array as surrounds (bi-amped) with stacked AMT-1s on top. I don't use the old Belle midrange/tweeter top sections.

 

[Mart68]

Cornwalls are not Jubilees (not even close...even if the Cornwalls are tri-amped and dialed in). They are very far apart in almost all acoustic performance areas.

Not sure what you mean? The discussion is about Klipsch not specifically the Jubilees.

Given the Jubilee is $55K there's not really any excuse for them to be flawed in any way. We have a high end show coming up here in just over a month, possibly they will be there.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Cornwalls are not Jubilees (not even close...even if the Cornwalls are tri-amped and dialed in). They are very far apart in almost all acoustic performance areas.

Cornwalls come in varieties. I suspect your assessment would change if you listened to CW IVs instead of CW Is-IIIs.

I own a pair of Heresy Is that now stay in the garage. I don't listen to them. The same is true for the Cornwall Is--they sit in storage, and Khorn clones. The Belle bass bins are in use in my 5.1 array as surrounds (bi-amped) with stacked AMT-1s on top. I don't use the old Belle midrange/tweeter top sections.

Why not just switch brands?

 

[Chris A]

...Given the Jubilee is $55K there's not really any excuse for them to be flawed in any way...

Who says they are?

My personal experience over the past 17 years is that any loudspeaker of the performance level of the Jubilee (both versions) is highly susceptible to setup and room acoustics issues. The same holds true for symphony orchestras playing in musical auditoria. The room and the setup are critical pieces of the acoustic system--even though the loudspeaker itself may or may not have full-range directivity control (as the Jubilee has).

Not sure what you mean? The discussion is about Klipsch not specifically the Jubilees.

My comment was to avoid confusing the acoustic performance of a Cornwall I-III with a Jubilee. There is a chasm of difference acoustically.

Chris